Re: [PATCH 1/4] riscv: add UltraRISC SoC family Kconfig support

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:46:24PM +0800, Jia Wang wrote:
> On 2026-03-16 14:39 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 03:06:57PM +0800, Jia Wang wrote:
> > > The first SoC in the UltraRISC series is UR-DP1000, containing octa
> > > UltraRISC C100 cores.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jia Wang <wangjia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs | 10 ++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs b/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs
> > > index d621b85dd63b..f49d3ccaacde 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs
> > > @@ -84,6 +84,16 @@ config ARCH_THEAD
> > >  	help
> > >  	  This enables support for the RISC-V based T-HEAD SoCs.
> > >  
> > > +config ARCH_ULTRARISC
> > > +	bool "UltraRISC RISC-V SoCs"
> > > +	depends on MMU && !XIP_KERNEL
> > 
> > Why do you depend on "MMU && !XIP_KERNEL"?
> >
> Hi Conor,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> The dependency on "MMU" was added conservatively, but the DP1000 hardware
> does not strictly require MMU. I will remove this dependency in the
> next version of the patch.
> 
> The "!XIP_KERNEL" dependency is retained because the platform does not
> support executing the kernel directly from storage, so the kernel
> must be loaded into RAM before execution.

I would imagine the reason these are here is because you copied this
from one of the other entries. They have "depends on MMU && !XIP_KERNEL"
is because they have errata that require alternatives to resolve, and
alternatives require those conditions. IMO you should remove these entirely,
especially since XIP_KERNEL is about to be removed for riscv soon
anyway.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature